Advertising MPLS labels in IGPs
draft-gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement-05
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hannes Gredler , Shane Amante , Tom Scholl , Luay Jalil | ||
| Last updated | 2013-11-16 (Latest revision 2013-05-15) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Historically MPLS label distribution was driven by session oriented protocols. In order to obtain a particular routers label binding for a given destination FEC one needs to have first an established session with that node. This document describes a mechanism to distribute FEC/label mappings through flooding protocols. Flooding protocols publish their objects for an unknown set of receivers, therefore one can efficiently scale label distribution for use cases where the receiver of label information is not directly connected. Application of this technique are found in the field of backup (Bypass, R-LFA) routing, Label switched path stitching, egress protection, explicit routing and egress ASBR link selection.
Authors
Hannes Gredler
Shane Amante
Tom Scholl
Luay Jalil
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)